Slitherine

captainjack wrote:I agree with Hurly. Afrika Korps is for me the most enjoyable expansion. It includes some interesting and challenging scenarios (Dash to the Wire, Persia), and withstands multiple replays - eg with Italian only, different core compositions. On top of this most scenarios allow more than one way to win.

I'm playing through US Corps for the second time now. I actually think the scenarios themselves are among the best, even better than Afrika. However, The replay value is reduced by the fact that the Americans have such a simple tech tree- there is no process of figuring out innovative unit combinations for each scenario. You don't need any fighter but the P-47, any bomber but the B-17, any artillery but the GMC until mid-1944 when it diversifies a bit, any anti-tank but the wolverine, any tank but the M4 series until 1945, or any infantry but the rangers and a couple engineers for the mine fields. Their only switch units are the 75 GMC which is an obsolete anti-tank compared to the wolverine that comes out at the same time, and the M4 artillery piece that also isn't that compelling at the very end.

With other factions you have the tension between flamethrower tanks vs. engineers, towed AA that can fight tanks vs. mobile AA, multiple series of viable fighters, heavy artillery vs light vs mortars, dedicated tac bombers vs. fighter bombers, etc. US corps has none of that and it hurts the gameplay.

I think that's more to do with the original equipment files for the US not getting nearly the same love as the British or Germans.

I don't think those behind US Corps had the power to change the equipment files.

No, like I said I think they design of US Corps itself is superb. And its not even the equipment file necessarily- some of it is historical. The Germans had a proliferation of many competing weapons systems. Even if most of them didn't get much use in real life they make for great what if scenarios in PzC. The Americans not so much.

That said, the mustang and lighting were useful aircraft in real life whereas in the game they are unnecessary compared to the P-47. That failing is partly at the hands of the equipment file and partly that the game mechanics don't really take endurance into account. It would have been neat if the lighting and P-51 had their fuel capacity cut by half the first time they engaged in combat after refueling to reflect drop tanks, and the lighting could have a switch trait that would give it recon move but no ground attack and only 2 points of ammo. Historically they were often used as long range spotting planes.

proline wrote:No, like I said I think they design of US Corps itself is superb. And its not even the equipment file necessarily- some of it is historical. The Germans had a proliferation of many competing weapons systems. Even if most of them didn't get much use in real life they make for great what if scenarios in PzC. The Americans not so much.

That said, the mustang and lighting were useful aircraft in real life whereas in the game they are unnecessary compared to the P-47. That failing is partly at the hands of the equipment file and partly that the game mechanics don't really take endurance into account. It would have been neat if the lighting and P-51 had their fuel capacity cut by half the first time they engaged in combat after refueling to reflect drop tanks, and the lighting could have a switch trait that would give it recon move but no ground attack and only 2 points of ammo. Historically they were often used as long range spotting planes.

This is a solid idea

You could make it work for auxiliary units in individual scenarios by starting those units with extra fuel. When you refuel you can't exceed the maxiumum (eg the Do217 in 41 East Barbarossa).

In theory you could script adding fuel on the first turn, but it could be a pain to make this work only for some aircraft.

Then a few equipment related options - none perfect but they should work.
Create two mustangs in the equipment file. One with droptanks that has very high fuel but reduced performance (eg -2 or -3 initiative) and one without normal fuel but normal initiative. If they are the same price, you can "upgrade" for free at an airfield.
Create a one-way switch between drop tank unit and normal unit. You have the benefit of extra fuel until you ditch the tanks for extra performance.

If you don't mind changing each scenario, yuu could also create a unit action that after something like 4 or 5 turns (around 50 or 60 fuel use) changes the high fuel version to the normal one, so you still effectively have a full tank after your first few turns.

huckc wrote:
I don't think those behind US Corps had the power to change the equipment files.

That's correct, it was off limits to me. I created the maps and scenarios of US Corps with the Allied Corps equipment file which imo sufficed. My request for US capturables at that time was approved though and those units were added to the equipment file by someone "upstairs". Naturally, it is understandable that the replay value is not the same as the GC, due to the limited variety of US units.
It is also my personal opinion that the "gold" edition came too quick, that more DLC's could have been created given an extra year or two. Considering community activity and the PzC 1 engine still is far from obsolete. Also considering the fact that PzC 2 was announced almost a year ago and it has been dead quiet about the project for ten months or so.

nikivdd wrote:

huckc wrote:
I don't think those behind US Corps had the power to change the equipment files.

That's correct, it was off limits to me. I created the maps and scenarios of US Corps with the Allied Corps equipment file which imo sufficed. My request for US capturables at that time was approved though and those units were added to the equipment file by someone "upstairs". Naturally, it is understandable that the replay value is not the same as the GC, due to the limited variety of US units.
It is also my personal opinion that the "gold" edition came too quick, that more DLC's could have been created given an extra year or two. Considering community activity and the PzC 1 engine still is far from obsolete. Also considering the fact that PzC 2 was announced almost a year ago and it has been dead quiet about the project for ten months or so.

Sounds like you're not involved with PzC 2 which is a huge bummer for me. US Corps is incredibly good and hopefully you at least make some DLC campaigns for us later on .

I especially like the consecutive map scenarios, like Salerno and Gela. You really get attached and immersed into the battle that way.

turn4441 wrote:I agree that the campaigns do get to be a slog. When you get to having to move 50+ units for 20+ turns, while the AI moves 150+ (at least over the course of the game) the turns do get quite long and it does get a tad tedious. However, if you like relatively small and short scenarios, I'd suggest you try Battle Academy if you haven't already. As it's also a Slitherine/Matrix title, I'm sure they'd be happy if you have both. I enjoy both games a lot but I like to go to BA when time is short and I want some quick actions and just don't feel like wading through the continual Russian onslaught.

It took me a long time to get through all the 1944/1945 campaigns; and I got still one open, that is the GC 45 "winning tree" where the Germans win the Ardennes campaign (oh, why they had to put that Seelow map again in there...). These maps are somewhat the Panzer Corps version of grinding. It is satisfying to win them (especially the Berlin scenarios with wave after wave incoming) but I don't know if I would go through that another time. I generally prefer most of the 1942/1943 maps where you are getting bigger forces but there is still movement space and you don't run immediately in a trap when you move 4 or 5 tiles into enemy territory with a single tank.

hurly wrote:

PoorOldSpike wrote:

captainjack wrote:If you get El Agheila in time, you will get reinforcements to aid your attack..

Aha, there's my excuse for losing 'Second Offensive' then, I got no reinfs..
I got back to EA in time but my Afrika Korps was on its knees crying out for replacement points but I didn't have any and the British just kept on bleeding me white and I was crumbling like a house of cards so I threw in the towel.
Yes it was the standalone scenario, I might get lynched for saying so but I don't like the campaigns; I tried a few and won some battles, but sooner or later the tree will dump a battle in our lap that is just plain boring and I think "why the hell am I playing this?", so I abandon the camp and go start a standalone scen that I like..

PS- for the record the prestige allowances for both sides in standalone 'Second Offensive' are-
Axis: 1712 at start, and 0 per turn.
British: 2325 at start, and 0 per turn.
So you see, my pp's ran out long before his did, and I was dead in the water, the maths beat me!
However I shall have fun playing it again and again in different ways until I win, that's the addictive quality of scenarios!.
Thanks for the tips, yes I think I wasted too many pp's slugging it out in the open desert instead of building a solid defensive line at El Agheila..
(If anybody else wants to see if they can do better than I did, I played it vanilla with default settings, Colonel level and supply Off)

Ha my biased Afrika Korps Alternate Ego says

Thou shalt Never Ever realize the absolute brilliant Design of the Afrika Korps Scenarios til you start your Epic Quest in Campaign Mode on the Sandlot Realms of the African Desert. Most likely not even til you try it in a True Valiant Effort on Rommel Mode and without any German Units.


I just say there is a reason why Afrika Korps is the Favourite Campaign for so many Players.
And it has probably the most Replay Value of all Campaigns as there are so many Twist and Options along your path.
And all without obscene endless Mass Hordes of enemies or SciFi like Wunderwaffen at Hand.
For me AK is Panzer Korps how it is meant to be, at least if you don't want to Stick to a real Historical Path.

Shout out to you. That is exactly what I am thinking. Afrika Korps handles the dynamic events best of all the campaigns.

nikivdd wrote:

huckc wrote:Also considering the fact that PzC 2 was announced almost a year ago and it has been dead quiet about the project for ten months or so.

Not totally quiet. There has been that weird supposedly unrelated Russian Panzer Strategy project that just so happens to have the exact same concept with the exact same Unreal engine at the exact same time as Panzer Corps 2.

proline wrote:

nikivdd wrote:

huckc wrote:Also considering the fact that PzC 2 was announced almost a year ago and it has been dead quiet about the project for ten months or so.

Not totally quiet. There has been that weird supposedly unrelated Russian Panzer Strategy project that just so happens to have the exact same concept with the exact same Unreal engine at the exact same time as Panzer Corps 2.

It is too much of a coincidence to ignore that fact. I am just wondering why Panzer Corps 2 was announced with a full blown orchestra, a tremendous activity in the first couple of weeks in the forum and then nothing for months on and on from the devs' part. If this is a new kind of marketing strategy, than i am disappointed.

nikivdd wrote: It is too much of a coincidence to ignore that fact. I am just wondering why Panzer Corps 2 was announced with a full blown orchestra, a tremendous activity in the first couple of weeks in the forum and then nothing for months on and on from the devs' part. If this is a new kind of marketing strategy, than i am disappointed.

I call that things: "Shit happened"

proline wrote:

nikivdd wrote:

huckc wrote:Also considering the fact that PzC 2 was announced almost a year ago and it has been dead quiet about the project for ten months or so.

Not totally quiet. There has been that weird supposedly unrelated Russian Panzer Strategy project that just so happens to have the exact same concept with the exact same Unreal engine at the exact same time as Panzer Corps 2.

I hope Panzer Corps 2 will be very different from that game. From what i've seen so far I'm not impressed. I know it's a personal thing, but the design choices of that game make it look very unappealing to me....

Afrikakorps and Sealion are truly fantastic campaigns IMO, I would single out: Gibraltar (S), Malta (AK), Assaulting London (S), Syria (/Palestine?)(AK), rush to Cairo after victorious El Alamein (AK)...

GC 39: The defensive scenario depicting the Polish counterattack. Challenging and extremely fun to open up those pesky tankettes with 88's
The Norwegian scenarios are also sweet.

GC 40: Eben Emael. The Hague (I love the Fallschirmjagers and their battles, generally). Arras, the great tank battle. Assaulting Maginot...

GC 41: Everything. Fun, challenging, daring, I love this campaign. Belgrade, Crete, Minsk, rushing Moscow... capturing Moscow, difficult and a good preparation for Stalingrad.

GC 42: Stalingrad. Make yourself coffee, have a cigarette, know this is going to take several hours, lock yourself in your room and enjoy.

GC 43: It starts to get masochistic here. Prokhorovka...

GC 44, 45: played them only once each, not going to single out a scenario, but they depict the panic, desperation and stalwart defense of those last days well.

GC West: again, a great campaign, it captures the feel of the theater well. A small core of veterans and Osttruppen... just like real-life Normandy. If you have played Brothers in Arms or Company of Heroes, you'll know ''the feel''.

Oh my, this just turned into a post about how much I love Panzer Corps and every damn aspect of it

NightPhoenix wrote:I hope Panzer Corps 2 will be very different from that game. From what i've seen so far I'm not impressed. I know it's a personal thing, but the design choices of that game make it look very unappealing to me....

I don't think its a personal thing. Yes, taste matters when it comes to games in the sense that I prefer strategy to shooters. However within a genre there is always a list of things that are objectively bad.

1) In board games the god's eye view is the only one that matters. All that zooming in and out they do is just going to make you miss an important enemy unit somewhere.
2) Having a "wait for animation to finish" thing that flashes across the screen.
3) Having so much detail that you can't differentiate the pieces from the board. Realistic pieces on a cartoon board works best (Monopoly, Panzer Corps). Cartoon pieces on a realistic board is tolerable. Realistic pieces on a realistic board = having to put glowy boarders around the units = fail.
4) A game should never sacrifice fun for other priorities including historical accuracy or visual allure. Games are meant to be fun. This isn't a simulator per se. Yes, Panzer Corps exaggerates the role of air and armor in a conflict where infantry and artillery did most of the killing. That's ok. It's more fun if each unit class has roughly equal utility.

I agree with proline. Panzer Corps occupies a niche, and deviating from it risks losing the attributes that make it what it is.

If I want the absolute accuracy of every round being calculated to its target, I play Combat Mission.

If I want grand strategic thinking in a historical context I play Hearts of Iron.

If I want to put regiments on the field I play Panzer Corps. It's not too hot... not too cold... it's just right.

It occupies the "Goldilocks Zone" for WW2 non-shooter gaming. If that clip going around is the new PzC, then they can have it.

huckc wrote:
GC West (not finished):
Eindhoven

Thats one of the toughest regarding to get a certain Decisive Victory (not to win generally). Took me quit some time to figure out how to get a sure DV. This map feels also a bit like a slog once you figure out that there quite some possibilities how to handle the massive defenses. Its one of the few maps were Bridge Engineers make a serious difference.

My favorite scenario - Norvegy)

Many good scenarios, especially Afrika Korps was most enjoyable for me, especially all scenarios up to Basra. The one scenario I keep coming back to when I'm in need for some short enjoyable action is Second Offensive. Fighting a retreat, then counterattack - yeah!

GC 39-42 is very fun as well, GC 43 is quite a challenge and the feeling of accomplishment after those battles is well-earned. GC 44, however conveys well what one German general once said: "Our units are like lonely islands in the sea of Soviet armies." It's hard watching merciless attrition of my precious experienced units.

GC-1939 Kampinoska Forest
GC-1940 Dunkirk
GC-1941 Streets of Moscow
GC-1942 Stalingrad Docks (All 3 maps of Stalingrad and last one Kotelnikovo was pure fun)
GC-1943 Prokhorovka (Took me several hours)
GC-1944 Minsk 1944
GC-1945 ...